3 ms·
If he wanted to sue, he really should have just gone for the consent angle and not the child porn one. Who exactly would agree that it's pornographic or exploi
by ravenstine 5y ago
If he wanted to sue, he really should have just gone for the consent angle and not the child porn one. Who exactly would agree that it's pornographic or exploitative? I doubt the vast majority of reasonable people would see the body of an infant in its natural form as anything but innocent on its own, but what do I know. They should have to demonstrate that the dollar bill makes people see the art as depicting child sex work; if this is requested somehow by the defendants, the glove won't fit. This may be a missing detail, but he should have just asked the record company for some money before escalating it. If he did that and they refused, I'm sure that would have been a part of the news story.
The logical end to the argument is that children should never appear in any kind of commercial media because they can't consent, which... come on man. Worst of all, though I'm no lawyer, it seems like there's definitely a non-zero chance he'll get counter-sued by each defendant when his own lawsuit falls apart.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mLuby 5y ago> The logical end to the argument is that children should never appear in any kind of commercial media because they can't consent That's not so unreasonable, considering how child stardom seems to mess with kids. Maybe better motion capture+deep fake tech will let professional actors appear as kids in media. Abolishing child labor may have seemed as ridiculous a few hundred years ago as this does today.
- dcow 5y agoNo thank you. Children should not be prohibited from acting any more than they should be prohibited from working at Chik-fil-a. How is an adult actor supposed to play a toddler? What are you talking about?
- erhk 5y agoChild labour is illegal
- porpoisemonkey 5y agoIs this universally true? In the US it appears that it just means there's more restrictions to what types of jobs you can/can't do and the hours you're allowed to work, but AFAIK it's not actually illegal to work as a child. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/YouthRules/young-workers/non-ag-under-14 https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/YouthRules/young-workers/no...
- Teever 5y agoDefine child. Define labour. In my justification 14 years can legally hold some jobs. Are girl scouts going door to door and selling cookies performing labour? Children unloading and loading the dishwasher at home?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ravenstine 5y agoEquating any appearance of children for artistic or commercial purposes to child stardom isn't particularly reasonable. Having known my share of child actors (one in a minor hit series and was in several movies, another in a full season of a show that never took off, and one who was in lots of music videos), I don't believe there is anything inherently bad for a child being depicted in media except stardom, which is arguably negative consequences for many adults. Elden isn't a star of anything. His infant likeness appears on an album in the 90's and 99.99999% of people don't know who the hell he is. His argument is that the mere appearance of his naked infant body with a superimposed dollar bill is child exploitation of sexual nature. In spite of his current stance, he's taken photos in his adulthood that resemble the album art in question (albeit with swim trunks on), the argument seems disingenuous and out of left field, and he could never claim to have been damaged by some sort of stardom because nobody identified him until he literally outed himself as the baby on that cover.
- kevingadd 5y agoIt's normal for a lawsuit to throw every possible thing that could stick in and hope that one of them survives - consent is also part of this lawsuit